This is why we need the government to help with mental health services.
Without the state providing care to psychiatric patients, hospitals would just give 1,500 patients one-way bus tickets and wash their hands of it. Oh. Wait. This is a government hospital….
Nullification isn’t radical, either. From my latest column at the Tenth Amendment Center:
Standing up and saying ‘no!’ when a group of sociopaths tries to commit a crime is not radical at all. Standing by and saying ‘yes!’ is the truly radical act. Just so we’re clear about terms, synonyms for radical are extreme, wild, or violent. Those just as easily describe the act of corralling human beings into stables like livestock and interring them indefinitely in prison camps. There’s nothing moderate, tame, or passive about declaring certain people to be sub-human and without rights, placing them in chains, and forcing them to return to labor as beasts of burden. And what other way is there to describe the act of marching men, women and children 2,200 miles at gun point into foreign land?
As might be expected, advocates of personal liberty are often smeared with the label “radical.” The reality is that libertarians aren’t radical at all, it’s quite the opposite.
Reject the premise that people who want to be left alone are the radicals. Turn the accusation around, and place that label where it belongs — with those who want to control other human beings and are okay with using brutality to that end.
I’ve been on somewhat of a nullification kick here lately, but remarkably, it’s been gaining some coverage in traditional news outlets, so it’s a good thing. Here’s a short piece on the Tenth Amendment Center blog that doesn’t deal specifically with nullification, but does focus on a trend that seems to be developing. Some on the Left and Right are relaxing a bit, and don’t seem so intent on controlling one another.
From the post:
After an embittered presidential election, a never-ending kabuki on Washington finances, and now a fierce debate over property rights, many would be surprised to know that members from opposite sides of the political spectrum have found some common ground. Betsy Woodruf at National Review Online sure was. She was shocked to find agreement between the Republican Governor of Illinois, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Dickenson of Rolling Stone magazine regarding medical marijuana and federalism. Both, it seems, favor letting the states determine their own drug policy, even though they may not agree on what each state ultimately decides.
First, note that agreement between the two parties happens more often than not. In principle they all agree on war, debt, entitlements, taxation, police statism, drones, the central bank, socialistic healthcare, prohibition, and many other issues. Of course they disagree on just how much debt there should be; if the military ought to bomb the people of third-world countries or drop bombs and machine-gun them; and whether individuals should forfeit 35 percent of their income or only 33 percent. Some diversity of thought.
But what’s noteworthy about this particular case is that each can agree because neither is trying to force the other into submitting to a single policy. Here we see one of the great things about decentralized government: it tends to reduce conflict by allowing various groups to “live and let live.” This is isn’t possible when all policy decisions are made by one body, when a polity becomes too big.
Read the rest here.
Breitbart.com is reporting that an overnight bill passed in the Senate will cut $1 for every $41 raised in taxes. The new taxes aren’t supposed to hit anyone earning less $450,000 per year, however taxes will increase for nearly everyone over the coming years, as the Affordable (sic) Care Act is phased in. In the same way the Affordable Care Act won’t make heathcare affordable in the long run, this new Senate bill, entitled the “American Tax Payer Relief Act,” won’t relieve American tax payers. I forget who said it, but someone onced noted that in dealing with Washington, one must always assume that a bill will have the opposite effect of its title.
I rarely predict anything, but I’m almost certain this will pass the House in the coming days. Afterwards, we can all relax and not have to hear any more about a “Fiscal Cliff,” or debates over taxes and who is or isn’t paying their fair share, the debt ceiling, or any other money games from the Feds. Democrats and Republicans will join hands and partisanship will be a thing of the past.
Jeff Roorda, a Missouri State representative from Barnhart, just south of St. Louis, wants to use police and para-military forces to shut down retailers and jail shoppers looking to buy Christmas presents next year. Of course he didn’t use that language, but followed to its logical end, this would be the result of a bill he plans to introduce in the legislature during the upcoming session. The proposed law would prohibit retail stores from opening before midnight on Thanksgiving, a scourge that has marred this great land.
Roorda’s obviously not grateful for all of the blessings that capitalism has provided. “Thanksgiving should be about families, not profit and greed,” he whined. It’s Thanksgiving day, not Black Friday Eve.” His concern of course is also in protecting employees from getting extra hours, “[a]s retailers try to outdo each other.”
The other interesting thing to note is how the businesses are always labeled as greedy, but never the customers, who flock to stores by the tens of millions looking for deep discounts. How is it that business profit (income minus expenses) is villified, but personal profit (income minus expenses) is not treated similarly? Neither should be labeled greedy, and we all ought to just be left alone.